Explosive device set off aboard airliner at Detroit Wayne International Airport

[Wargames Mark]

Personally, I'd rather get blown up than put up with much more airport security hassles.

It's somewhat selfish of me, but I figure that if I were to fly on a commercial airliner everyday for the rest of my life, with pre-9/11 security, the chances of me being the victim of an act of terrorism would be almost zero.

(Break, break, break...)

TSA screenings and no-fly lists are passive measures. They are static. The enemy trying to penetrate those defenses has the initiative. He can fail 100 times. He only needs to succeed once - and every once in a while, he will succeed.

This war must be fought on the offensive. I know it sounds irritatingly cheesy, but "Be the hunter, not the hunted."

No matter what we do though, the enemy will get through to targets in the West. When he does so, it is not necessarily reasonable to go into psycho-hall-monitor-from-hell mode.

I'll leave the rest to Christopher Hitchens...

[Rex Brynen]

Well, this doesn't make a lot of sense:

BBC News, 3 January 2010

Tougher US air screening for 'terror-prone' countries

The new screening comes into effect on Monday

The US authorities are introducing tougher screening rules for passengers arriving by air from nations deemed to have links with terrorism.
Reports say people flying from Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Cuba will have pat-down body searches and have carry-on baggage searched.

...

The Transportation Security Administration said in a statement that the new rules apply to passengers flying from or through countries on the US State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list - Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria - and "other countries of interest".

The risk is not so much from passengers flying from or through Iran, Syria, or Cuba--where internal security is generally quite tight, and where the regimes have no desire to be implicated directly (if at all) in an attack against a US airliner. The risk is from passengers passing through countries with poor airport security--a rather different issue.

[Ken White]

Tell the Troops where the off limits area are and they'll go there just to prove they can; tell smart attackers where you're 'clamping down' and they'll find other routes.

Sigh.

We're insane. Really...

[slapout9]

We're insane. Really...

Yep!

[Stan]

Man skirts security at NJ airport; flights stopped

and they were so busy with tougher screening that this dude just walked on by

[Ken White]

From a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by L.Gordon Crovitz, 3 Jan 10:

...
"Timothy Healy, the head of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, explained the unit's "reasonable suspicion" standard like this:

"Reasonable suspicion requires 'articulable' facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to, terrorism and terrorist activities, and is based on the totality of the circumstances. Mere guesses or inarticulate 'hunches' are not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion."

If this sounds like legalistic language, it is. Indeed, a quick Web search was a reminder that this language is adapted from Terry v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case in 1968 that determined when Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches allows the police to frisk civilians or conduct traffic stops. In other words, foreign terrorists have somehow now been granted Fourth Amendment reasonableness rights that courts intended to protect Americans being searched by the local police." (emphasis added /kw)

LINK.

Using law enforcement organizations, techniques and rules in a futile attempt to counter espionage and terrorism is just STOOPID!!!

We're nuts...

P.S.

Happy New Year, Stan.

[slapout9]

From a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by L.Gordon Crovitz, 3 Jan 10:LINK.

Using law enforcement organizations, techniques and rules in a futile attempt to counter espionage and terrorism is just STOOPID!!!

We're nuts...

P.S.

Happy New Year, Stan.

Actually there is an LE rule that should be used..... exigent circumstances......which means there are times when situations and people are so dangerous that you DON'T follow the normal rules. Like blowing up planes,buildings,countries.

[Ken White]

that would require the Feds to, you know, actually, like think...

[Stan]

Actually there is an LE rule that should be used..... exigent circumstances......

Slap, I've heard of this very same situation (my brother-in-law is a LEO with the Capitol Police). The perp was in a building and the LEOs collectively decided that my Bro's 92-pound Shepperd should go first

... Sure as Sierra, the dude came outta the building pronto

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons

P.S.
Happy New Year, Stan.

Hey Ken, Back at ya !

[davidbfpo]

Somewhat long and challenging on the Saudi role, but makes a series of points on the 'new' TSA actions, under the title: 'Muslim profiling is a recipe for insecurity: The profiling of ordinary Muslims loses the support of the very people we need to contain al-Qaeda'.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...security/print

[jmm99]

The last few posts point up a problem that permeates the entire "Small Wars" arena. The Laws of War and the Rule of Law - as rationally and reasonably interpreted, and which are available to the US for those who think it through - provide all of the capabilities needed. Unfortunately, those who are doing the deciding seem fixated on a "one or the other approach" - using the Laws of War only, or using the Rule of Law only.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

that would require the Feds to, you know, actually, like think...

Ken, I am telling ya it is the suit Put a uniform on a cop and he acts like a cop, put street clothes on him and and acts like an undercover cop.......put a suit on a cop and he acts like.......a bureaucrat

[slapout9]

Slap, I've heard of this very same situation (my brother-in-law is a LEO with the Capitol Police). The perp was in a building and the LEOs collectively decided that my Bro's 92-pound Shepperd should go first

... Sure as Sierra, the dude came outta the building pronto

Hey Stan, good for your brother!!!!!!! Ya know I almost got talked into joining the Capitol Police........funny story to but I will tell ya when you get back home

[Pete]

Speaking of the Laws of War, one of the earlier codifications of them was General Orders No. 100, April 1863, "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field."

Art. 28.
Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.

Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages.

The author of the orders was Francis Lieber, LL.D., a German refugee from the Revolutions of 1848. Prior to the outbreak of the Civil War his antislavery views caused him to have to move away from Charleston, South Carolina. It is possible that Lieber's brief experience as a revolutionary made him more tolerant of irregulars than more traditional interpretations of the "Usages of War."

To read General Orders No. 100 in their entirety, click below:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp

[wm]

Here is another article on what to learn from the event.

I think the article's ultimate paragraph sums things up nicely.

There were mistakes made on several levels. Let's not make the mistakes worse by implementing useless countermeasures that don't cost-effectively mitigate the risk. What people have to understand is that the goal of terrorism is not to actually blow up an airplane, but to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt to create a political change. By grossly overreacting and putting in place useless countermeasures that make world travel more difficult, you are creating the effects the terrorists want. Whether or not the terrorist brought the airplane down, we have made the attack successful. In the mean time, please stop and consider that at least one person died in an automobile accident while you read this article.

[Stan]

Here is another article on what to learn from the event.

I think the article's ultimate paragraph sums things up nicely.

It's a good article, but I don't get Ira's inordinate comparison of highway traffic accidents and potential terrorist attacks on board aircraft - sounds like she's got a bone to pick.

She should try a good old fashioned pat-down here or in Moscow - I think they started at the crotch and worked out

[Stan]

And now Russia's opinion and version. There's just a smiggin of Anti-US herein

... There is no need to retell the details of the Detroit incident starring the “crotch bomber,” or “underpants bomber,” as the poor Nigerian patsy is usually referred to. Anyone with a minimum of intelligence should have immediately seen the story for what it is: a scam.

One crucial detail is mostly left out of the Detroit charade story as it is being handled by the mainstream media worldwide: at Amsterdam airport, the “crotch bomber” boarded the US-bound flight without a passport and without going through any security check. Instead, he was escorted by a “well-dressed” gentleman who apparently had access to the boss of the Israeli firm that handles security at Amsterdam. If the same “well-dressed” gentleman would render this service to all passengers, flying would certainly be a more pleasant experience than it is for most of us at this moment.

[slapout9]

And now Russia's opinion and version. There's just a smiggin of Anti-US herein

Stan, that is true they had a couple on TV that kept telling this story but they complained they no one was interested in the information they had. The well dressed gentleman was described as an Indian (from India) This whole thing is really starting to stink IMO.

[davidbfpo]

Slap,

Whilst in the USA I read reports that a Detroit-based lawyer saw a person being arrested upon landing, which had lots of coverage and then US Customs spokesman admitted a man had been arrested and later released. Why it took several days to admit eluded explanation.

Cannot readily recall the news report, but IIRC it was in Detroit's main newspaper's website.

I even read that the Dutch hero involved used language in his statement that suggested he was linked to the security world, until Dutch people who knew appeared to say "rot".

Two small parts of the story that looked mysterious and now the "smoke of conspiracy" has moved on.

[slapout9]

Slap,

Whilst in the USA I read reports that a Detroit-based lawyer saw a person being arrested upon landing, which had lots of coverage and then US Customs spokesman admitted a man had been arrested and later released. Why it took several days to admit eluded explanation.

David, that's it! but if a lawyer was involved you know it had to be a conspiracy

Hadn't heard the one about the Dutch passenger being associated with Dutch security.